• Steve H. Hanke
    05/04/2016 - 08:00
    Authored by Steve H. Hanke of The Johns Hopkins University. Follow him on Twitter @Steve_Hanke. A few weeks ago, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) sprang a surprise. It announced that a...

One Man's Melting Ice Cap, Is Another Man's 40% Transit-Time Boost

Tyler Durden's picture


"The numbers are coming in and we are looking at them with a sense of amazement," is how the director of the Snow and Ice data center in Colorado describes the 'startlingly rapid rate' of melting at the Arctic Ice Cap this year. As Agence France Presse notes, if the melt stopped today, this would be the third lowest level of ice on record. Of course while this maybe terrible news for some; others are 'increasingly interested'. The thaw in the Arctic is rapidly transforming the geopolitics of the region, with the long-forbidding ocean looking more attractive to the shipping and energy industries.


The first ship from China – the Xuelong, or Snow Dragon – recently sailed from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Arctic Ocean, cutting the distance by more than 40%. Five nations surround the Arctic Ocean – Russia, which has about half of the coastline, along with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States – but the route could see a growing number of commercial players.


Of course this 'benefit' of global warming appears to rely on the fact that there are people left to trade goods with.

Your rating: None

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:29 | 2734977 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

clearly this is the work of manbearpig

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:23 | 2735244 Fukushima Sam
Fukushima Sam's picture

Runaway global warming, bitchez!


Fri, 08/24/2012 - 21:33 | 2736025 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

When the ice melts, sea levels will RISE by 80 meters (263 feet).

To see that this is true;

Let's calculate the sea-level rise due to just the Antarctic ice sheet melting.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica we gleam the following facts;

Area of ice-covered Antarctica = 13,720,000 sq km (5,300,000 sq mi)

Average depth of ice = 1.6  km (1.0 mi)

This implies a volume of ice = 13,720,000 * 1.6 = 21,952,000 km3

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean we have;

The area covered by the ocean = 361,000,000 km2

Thus if the Antarctic ice sheet were to melt the sea-level would rise by

21952000/361000000 = 0.06081 km = 60.81 meters.

Now add in the other ice sheets and glaciers and you get a rise of about 80 meters.



Fri, 08/24/2012 - 22:12 | 2736085 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

not bullish for most oceanfront real estate.  but "glean".

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 22:53 | 2736112 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

Thanks, I'll change that. Oops,... doesn't seem I can.

NOT BULLISH for Manhattan properties.

The first ice-sheet to go will be Greenland's.

It will add about 6 meters (20 feet) to sea-levels,...

adding a decorative pool to Manhattan's skyscrapers.

Manhattan property,... a long term sell.

London property,... a long term sell.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 00:14 | 2736260 Freddie
Freddie's picture

BS.  I have lived on the water, just off the ocean, for almost 15 years.  Water in back and that far away in front.  Water all around.

No change. If anything, low tide appears slighltly lower when there is a new moon (lowest tides).  Keep up with the GW fantasy.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 00:50 | 2736295 Muppet of the U...
Muppet of the Universe's picture

You know what astounds me?  That people forget the ice is less dense than water...  So if all the ice caps melt, the ice transformed into water will take less space than the ice originally held!!!!

O SHIT, looks like hope for rising sea levels is dashed somewhat.  But looks bullish for fresh water...  O SHIT WE ALL GONNA DIE.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 01:56 | 2736340 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

"BS. I have lived on the water, just off the ocean, for almost 15 years.... No change."

Guess you don't live in California then.

"In the 20th century, the sea level rose on average 8 inches along California's coastline, research by Climate Central and others shows. Middle-of-the-road expectations are that it will rise 6 to 8 more inches by 2030, 12 inches by 2050 and 24 inches by 2070. By 2100, it could be 3 to 5 feet higher, said Gary Griggs, director of the Institute of Marine Sciences at UC Santa Cruz."


Sat, 08/25/2012 - 06:51 | 2736513 Element
Element's picture

Have you heard of geotectonics?  The earth's crust actually rises and falls you know?  It's laughable that in places in the SW Pacific Islands, (all are volcanic in origin BTW), all sitting a-top fast-moving (in geological terms) major geotectonic crustal and structural discontinuities, called 'plate-margins' (in this case 'subduction zones'), where the sea may keep coming up, or else will go out further, each year, due to regional crustal warping, and resulting sinking and rising - within living memory. 

There is the secular NET regional movements (up or down), often several mm or cm every year, and then there there are major transient tectonic movements from earthquake shocks ocurring within the secular movement, which may rise or fall by several meters, within seconds.  It would be utterly rediculous to claim one of these was from sea level rises, but not the other ... and yet that is precisely what these GreenPeace idiots and IPCC jerk-offs keep merely pretending is true!

It's insane!

So these greenie dumbfucks just keep asserting that this trend is "sea level rise", when they know perfectly well that the geologists have shown in tremendous detail that it's just prosaic regional geodynamics, doing what it has always done in that region (they know this because we have been telling them, so they know perfectly well that they are lying when they claim this shit).

This is why greenies are complete fucking retards, and never to be listened to or accepted on face value.  For one thing, they can't even work out that a long-term sea level rise would be expressed globally, rather than as a localised rise.


So whenever some fucking greenie jerk-off, or rather more likely, a knowing deliberative liar tries to claim a LOCAL sea level rise is occurring, just look at the geodetics to debunk their crap.  

But by then the media idiots will have lapped it all up, also knowing already that its irrational and illogical bullshit--but what do they care?  They just want to sell advertisement-space and if fear-mongering works better for doing that then the MSM's 'News' producers will happily sell fear and lies, rather than prosaic facts and truth (which pays rather badly, in comparison to fear and lies).

These people, these MSM, these 'greens' fundamentally don't give a rats arse about science. They are only interested in a shallow manufactured mystique and a facade of a pseudo-science, to the extent that they can pervert it to their desired warped ideological ends.

They are not the slightest bit interested in either truth, or in "saving the planet".  These gratuitous fools and parasites are after one thing only, political power so that they can dictate to others, and to raid and pilfer the purse of the taxpayer, while they set about to systematically destroy all employment and business, while growing govt.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 08:40 | 2736559 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, tells us that;

The last 16 years include the 15 HOTTEST years on record.


Including 2011 with their data tells us that the last 17 years include the 16 HOTTEST years on record.

And in a few months this will be;

the last 18 years include the 17 HOTTEST years on record.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 09:02 | 2736605 i-dog
i-dog's picture

You seem worried! Is the Earth going to explode in the next few years? Does this mean we are all going to spontaneously combust before El Niño returns?

BTW, according to Al Gore and his Oscar-winning movie, weren't the Maldives and some Pacific islands supposed to be evacuated and underwater by now? The 'inconvenient truth' is that they seem to be just the same as they were back then.

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 22:26 | 2742595 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

You're forgetting 2 very key points:

#1 sea level will rise EVERYWERE whereas landmass will rise only in SPECIFIC spots from volcanic activity

#2 highly unstable areas where land rises meters in seconds tends not to be where people are living. Some do, it's true, but not too many. It is very dangerous.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 01:58 | 2736345 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

"You know what astounds me? That people forget the ice is less dense than water...  So if all the ice caps melt, the ice transformed into water will take less space than the ice originally held!!!!"

Not to call you stupid, but don't you know that almost all of the ice-sheets are bedded on rock.

So, even though water takes up less space than the ice, this fact is irrelevant.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 05:35 | 2736499 Element
Element's picture

Tylers, no need to freak out:


Financial Sense NewsHour

Global Warming: Fact, Fiction or Conspiracy?


Audio interview:



I'm just going to post this every time this topic comes up.

Mon, 08/27/2012 - 22:23 | 2742592 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

jesus Freddie you can't fool us.

I already know you're soaking up the excess rising water with your snorg-tee collection.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 03:56 | 2736432 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

Bullish for some non-oceanfornt properties.

Bye bye Washington DC. Feel free to cheer among yourselves.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:29 | 2734979 The Wizard of Oz
The Wizard of Oz's picture


Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:30 | 2734982 FOC 1183
FOC 1183's picture

100 years of records vs. 4.5 billion years of reality

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:39 | 2735037 nevadan
nevadan's picture

What?  2.2x10^-8 is too small a sample size to be statistically valid?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:44 | 2735322 Tarheel
Tarheel's picture

very nice!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:40 | 2735041 malikai
malikai's picture

Yup. I wonder what the poles looked like during the Cretaceus period.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:12 | 2735162 easypoints
easypoints's picture

True. But we weren't trying to feed an exponentially growing population back then. If the temperature and rainfall changes over a few decades, you have to drastically change where you grow your food to expand your output, or use less of it. If the sea level changes a few inches in a century when most of the population lives near the ocean, you have even bigger problems.

That is what this article is implying. Whether or not the earth has had drastic climate changes is not worth debating; it obviously has.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:13 | 2735197 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If you really want to feed an exponentially growing population, then you should want a warmer world, where the vast Canadian tundra becomes an extnsion of the US midwestern grain belt.

40% less fuel for a good number of trade routes would help too.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:30 | 2735229 easypoints
easypoints's picture

There may be some positives as vast new areas become farmable, but they would take time to develop. I mainly just want to point out that our agricultural system is fragile and that trends always foreshadow supply interruptions, and should be taken seriously. A couple bad seasons in a row, along with monetary inflation, would start a global riot.



Fri, 08/24/2012 - 18:17 | 2735604 mudduck
mudduck's picture

Don't worry. It's covered, just gotta put a couple of cock roach genes into the corn and wheat DNA and voila' you can't kill the stuff.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 22:18 | 2736094 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

re exponentially growing population: maybe only for a bit.  population growth is below replacement throughout the developed world and, as women worldwide become better educated and more self sufficient economically, growth rates will likely drop elsewhere.


Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:28 | 2735269 linrom
linrom's picture

Linear thinking buffoon as usual. Hey, what about all countries below Canada.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 17:36 | 2735479 Nels
Nels's picture

Not linear, but historical.  In previous warmings (Roman & Medieval Optimums), the tropics stayed at 80 degrees, while the higher lattitudes warmed up.  Since the temperatuire gradient going North was reduced, there were fewer severe storms.  It was better weather for all.

The countries below Canada will be just fine, buffoon.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:31 | 2735279 nevadan
nevadan's picture

Yup. I wonder what the poles looked like during the Cretaceus period.


Or nearly any period for that matter.


Fri, 08/24/2012 - 16:53 | 2735360 knukles
knukles's picture

The Poles looked very similar to their other Central European brethren.  But with larger muscles and smaller cranial capacity.  The latter (cranial capacity) very reminiscent of that displayed by the New Euro Governing Brotherhood which in fact has been proven by simple behavioral comparisons. 
Now, what has changed immeasurably has been the Italian female which has progressed from hairy, brutish and stinky into that exemplified by the chickadee in the Fiat 500 Abarth ads.

Va Va Voom!

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 18:20 | 2735615 mudduck
mudduck's picture

Most of the Poles I've met are very nice people.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 18:43 | 2735682 nevadan
nevadan's picture

Poles with a notable cranial output include Copernicus, Madame Curie, F Chopin....

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 21:47 | 2736045 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

Here is a graphic showing temperature (centigrade) versus carbon dioxide concentration (ppm) at Vostok (Antarctica) over the last 420,000 years.

This gives some accurate temperatures for the last 420,000 years.


Hmmmm,... anyone think there is a correlation between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 23:49 | 2736229 nevadan
nevadan's picture

Hey pal, your chart is bullshit.  If you'll notice the red caption on the left it says "Temperature difference from 1961 to 1990".  That sounds suspiciously like 29 years to me, not 420,000 years.  That data is scaled on the bottom as 400,000 years which likely does correspond with an ice accumulation of 3300 meters.  If the temperature and CO2 data are matched with the 400k scale then the temp is elevated for approximately the last 10,000 years which doesn't fit with the AGW idea very well now does it?  Whoever put this thing out did it for suckers like you.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 02:17 | 2736347 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

"Hey pal, your chart is bullshit. If you'll notice the red caption on the left it says "Temperature difference from 1961 to 1990 average of -56 (degrees)".

Yes,... that is what it says and that is what it is meant to say.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 09:11 | 2736613 nevadan
nevadan's picture

You really are stupid.  The chart claims a fluctuation of 12 degrees centigrade at an average of -56 degrees centigrade although the zero looks much too high to approximate the central tendency of the temperature range.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 16:35 | 2737538 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

You really are stupid.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 09:54 | 2736674 BobRocket
BobRocket's picture

I love that chart.


Notice how temperature rises and then CO2 rises afterwards, increasing CO2 doesn not cause increase in temperature, it's the other way around.


Temperature rises, CO2 rises, temperature falls.


CO2 increase is coincidental with falling temperatures, it is AGC not AGW that we should be worried about.


Mon, 08/27/2012 - 22:16 | 2742580 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

What I see is that you have bad eyesight.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 21:49 | 2736049 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

Here is a graphic showing temperature (centigrade) versus carbon dioxide concentration (ppm) at Vostok (Antarctica) over the last 420,000 years.

This gives some accurate temperatures for the last 420,000 years.


Hmmmm,... anyone think there is a correlation between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 23:14 | 2736162 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

We got some Elliot Wave experts around here who should be able to answer that.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 02:21 | 2736362 Slack Jack
Slack Jack's picture

"We got some Elliot Wave experts around here who should be able to answer that."

I think a quick glance would demonstrate the correlation (for most people).

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 10:54 | 2736820 macbone
macbone's picture

The temperature records from 400,000 years ago?  I presume they were using cutting edge Flintstone technology to nail down the accuracy?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 20:21 | 2735930 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

The Poles have always been a squat, hairy, hard working people. They might have been a little hairier that far back in time though.

Sat, 08/25/2012 - 03:55 | 2736431 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

May I suggest a nice white wine with your Crustaceans?


Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:31 | 2734986 HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

Who has the BAWLS to come up here and KNOCK me off?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:34 | 2734987 Stoploss
Stoploss's picture

Is it the day after tomorrow??


Ask someone with a salt water swimming pool, what happens when you get two or three inches of rain in the pool.

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:41 | 2735051 malikai
malikai's picture

There is such a thing as a salt water swimming pool?

Fri, 08/24/2012 - 15:58 | 2735120 Chump
Sat, 08/25/2012 - 06:50 | 2736533 malikai
malikai's picture

Hey that's kinda awesome. Can you load them up with salt and make them like the Dead Sea? I spent some time in the Red Sea and the heavy salt content of the water there is great for the skin, plus its real easy to swim in.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!